This is anticompetitive, it ensures no one else can use these patents as an advantage against intel. Works out well for all of us, but it prevents someone using this money to find something out, patent it, and then bend intel over for the patented tech.

This is anticompetitive, it ensures no one else can use these patents as an advantage against intel.

No, it ensures noone can use those patents against anyone else.....

No law prohibits a company from being anticompetitive in the form of disallowing another company from stealing the legal rights to their own investment, to enable the 'competitor' to put the company who made the original investment at a disadvantage, by having rights to research the original company funded.

You get to a point where you realize that as soon as you spend a shitload of money trying to corner the market on something, the time you've wasted ends up giving the competition a leg-up in a new area you SHOULD have been spending that time and energy working on.

Just open source fucking everything and use it to make money on support. There is no gross margin in hardware anymore, and none in the perceivable future -- and Intel knows it.

Just open source fucking everything and use it to make money on support. There is no gross margin in hardware anymore, and none in the perceivable future -- and Intel knows it.

What a bunch of wishful thinking. You think Intel, AMD, and ARM are going to make the same amount of money if they just open sourced all their designs and relied on support? Intel is doing like IBM and other companies: Open sourcing at a limited level while still keeping their core products proprietary.

IBM does make 90% of their money on support. Of course, support doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It doesn't mean answering the phone and saying 'no, click on the left button' it means saying 'well, we have these components, and you have these problems. We can solve your problems by deploying these components and writing these ones.' And that's always been where the big money has been in software: using it to solve real-world problems. Sometimes an off-the-shelf solution exists, but most of

Mod parent up. Its not like intel's products are going to become free in the near future. Though I wonder, outside the rampant speculation that "all the money is in customization", how much of their income really comes from hardware sales, soft support contracts, custom hardware configuration, etc. It would really add some insight to this discussion to have those data points.

It doesn't prevent AMD benefiting from the useful technology, it just prevents the patents. That's the ideal situation. They're providing an incentive to invent things without the temporary monopoly.

Agreed. I see nothing at all wrong with this restriction.

Given that Intel funded them they could have asked for ownership, but instead asked for Open Sourcing any developments. Good on Intel.

Given that Universities are for the most part funded by government and other public funding sources one could make the case that they should ALL operate this way. Universities are the last entity that should be locking up ideas with patents.

I simply can't get incensed about this. Its a clever way to give back to society something bigger than you have in your own inventory.

Given that Universities are for the most part funded by government and other public funding sources one could make the case that they should ALL operate this way. Universities are the last entity that should be locking up ideas with patents.

What should happen is the creator/inventor should have a right to any patents as a success incentive, and whoever supplies funding should be entitled to the rest, and name their terms as Intel is doing; universities already get plenty of money for hosting the research

This is so wrong I have to ask, are you mentally challenged? First to file does not change rules about publication or who can claim inventions. It only changes the rules covering what happens when two groups attempt to patent the same thing at nearly the same time.

First to file, by changing "who wins" explicitly changes the rules of invention to be that the "inventor" is the person who gets the patent, not the person who actually made the first working example. Go read history and see who made the first working radio and who patented it first and who is commonly credited with the invention.

You are so wrong that I have to ask, are you mentally challenged? You are incorrectly arguing about what you think "should" happen, in direct contradiction to reality. That mak

But alas, open source and patents are not mutually exclusive. The presence of an open source demonstration of the technology in the patent would only make it possible for some interested third party to later claim that the patent was filed despite prior art that the inventor does not own, and they would then stand a slightly better chance at having the patent invalidated. See also: "Royalty Free Patent" which is a construct aimed at using the patent system to protect against abuse of the patent system, al

In this case, they are saying that any patentable invention must be published, nobody involved will file patents, and any 'significant' software will be released under an open source license. The only disadvantage is that existing patents are the first choice when looking at prior art, so it's not as good at invalidating patents.

You are wrong on every point. I've been modded down, not up. There's nothing you've said that's true. In the US, you can get a patent even if you are provably not the person who invented it. Europe isn't any better for IP, did you not just notice the copyright extension to protect Beatles? The laws in the US are in direct violation of the Constitution. They can only exist to promote creation, but when their effect is stifling, that means they are unconstitutional. They are there for the sole purpose

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid your trolling simply doesn't measure up to the high standards we have here at Slashdot. You see, unlike at digg or fark, we here at Slashdot have a rich tradition of truly great trolling, and because of this we try to attract only the best and brightest of the trolling community. Our trolls have gone on to lead very rich and lucrative careers in exciting and rewarding fields such as shills for Microsoft and Intel management. Who do you think came up with the Intel x87 compiler tric

Yes, you missed something. Intel is not dictating what random institutions can do, it's dictating what institutions receiving funds from Intel can do. A university is free to find funding elsewhere and still file patents. If they believe that patents are really worthwhile, then they can get investors to fund the research in exchange for a percentage of the patent royalties. In fact, if patents really were useful to universities, then they wouldn't be asking Intel for funding at all, they'd all be fundin

It has a similar effect as buying an existing patent for "defensive purposes": make it impossible to use that patent against you. In the defensive patent strategy, you're buying up the sword; in this special strategy, you're preventing the sword from even being made.

(For those of you who are a bit metaphor-challenged: the idea being researched is not the sword. The legal threat implicit in patent ownership and defense is the sword.)

A university is free to find funding elsewhere and still file patents.

Just not if they accept any Intel money. In a sense they're selling a bit of their freedom (like you might working for someone who says you can't also work for anyone else. And like that example, it's probably well worth it to do, for most).

I've figured out where my confusion comes from. The root of this for me is a loss of freedom required by Intel, which has me asking "How is that good?" And yet I realize that this move IS good for everybody. Everyone benefits, except maybe it's a step back for "large cor

With first to file you still cannot patent anything that has already been published, so as long as the university publishes instead of sitting on the invention then nobody else can come along and file for a patent.

Sure you can. It's not a crime to apply for a patent on something with previous art.

Actually, it can be. When you file a patent, then you must sign a document saying that you have searched the published material for related work and that you are not aware of any prior art. If this statement can be shown to be false, then you have just committed perjury.

If this statement can be shown to be false, then you have just committed perjury.

They probably won't enforce it

What should happen instead, is congress should pass a law, and set a very steep fine.
Require a proof of creditworthiness and ability to pay the fine to obtain the patent.

The patent office should be allowed to make a finding, charge the penalty, and receive the proceeds,
if anyone's found patenting something there is prior art for, before or after issuance of the patent.

Reading your post, I'm fairly certain you have no idea how business works.

he difference is they control what their employees do, but not what the kids do. What if the kids in the lab create something "naughty" that gets them sued

The other difference is, they aren't responsible for what the kids do... because they don't control them. I'm not responsible for what your kids do, even if I give you $50 and you give it to them to buy a gun and shoot people. What world do you live in where someone is responsible for your actions but have no control what so ever over your actions?

I'm more worried about the kids creating "Napster 2012" or equivalent. Intel wants / needs no part of that, thats for sure.

Do you have any idea how much money was made by smart people off of Napster? The onl

I like bashing faceless mega corporations as much as the next guy, but this seems to be... a benign act.

It's worse than that... it's almost designed to improve the overall state of the art, without Intel gaining exclusive access to the research, thereby making it possible for just anybody to gain from this. I'm outraged.

I mean, that's almost communism. No patents? No royalties? No licensing fees? No lawyers? Just good old fashioned university research opened up for all to see?

Do you realize how badly this could cripple the economy?;-)

(Kidding aside... I wonder if the academic journals would muck with this somehow. They take copyright of the papers, for instance.)

I do applaud Intel for this... when I first read this, I thought the string was they they get the patents. This really is funding open research.

Intel gets to ensure that they get to use the discoveries causes by the research without having to pay licensing for it.

They're essentially outsourcing brain-storming to universities then take what they come up with and refine it with their own engineers at a cost far lower than what they would need to self invest. It's open source because Intel wants to be able to use the research and there's no way the universities would accept the money and give any inventions that came from it to Intel.

Because the Bayh-Dole Act [wikipedia.org] was enacted by a Congress (which funds the NSF) that does not agree with you in the the same sense.

Research money has to come from somewhere. It can come from your taxes, it can come from university money, or it can (and does) come from a combination of the two. Universities can make money by charging students fees or by licensing patents to inventions developed by their staff (and student employees). Money made by licensing patents has the advantage of coming from commercial pa

Research money has to come from somewhere. It can come from your taxes, it can come from university money, or it can (and does) come from a combination of the two.

The entire reason that we fund research is because we believe the knowledge will help advance society. Given that, more widely this knowledge is used, the greater effect it will have and the more it will improve the standard of living. By restricting who can use the knowledge we are artificially decreasing our return on investment for tax-funded research. I would argue that the opportunity cost of doing so far outweighs the money saved by university patent revenue.

It is -- in the same way that a public ampitheater paid for by the people is available "to the people." Not every person has the right to use the stage at any given time,

... someone else will. We have a first to file situation here. This is RIDICULOUSLY dumb on Intel's part. A nice sentiment, better executed by stating, "All fruits of this research must be patented by this foundation we've set up, which allows open, free licensing to anybody and everybody." Defensive patents are the only security you have; non-patent clauses just guarantee somebody other than your allies will patent! Ask Google, specifically whomever wrote the $12.1 billion check to acquire defensive patent

Sure. You'd win a legal challenge. If you spent millions litigating it first. And you get a decent judge/jury. A small startup wouldn't stand a prayer, prior art or no. Look at the suits Rambus won with 2 patents that were later invalidated (think it was on/. today). You think those companies are getting their money back? Why take the risk?

If we are going with the cold realities of our broken patent system, you can get patents on stuff that's already patented by someone else if you word it differently enough, so it doesn't really matter what the universities do.

Sure. You'd win a legal challenge. If you spent millions litigating it first.

With a prior art in public domain, why should I litigate first? I mean: I already have a proof in the public domain that I discovered that, shouldn't be the burden of the other to demonstrate the validity of its patent in the conditions of prior art?

As others have commented, first to file doesn't apply if the research has been made public. Since universities rely on publish or perish, the most likely scenario is that anything produced through Intel funding will be considered prior art when an outside party then tries to patent it. Assuming that the software is GPL'd, then it must include the GPL required headers, etc. So, if somebody does try to usurp it, then the university can sue them for license violations.

What Intel is proposing is how Universities used to operate prior to the 1980s. Somebody did research, presented a paper at a conference, others picked it up and expanded on that research and then presented at another conference, etc., etc. There were no patents and information flowed relatively freely and knowledge expanded. That is how the university system was designed to work.

Come the 1980s and tax law changes, universities focused more on monetarizing their research to fund other things (not necessarily a bad thing), but the way it played out was that the patents were then sold to other companies who then used them to build war chests and limit competition.

Intel is every bit in its right to insist that if you want to use their money for research, these are the stipulations. If a university doesn't like having to make the fruits of the research public and available to all, they are free to use the money from somebody else.

It is interesting to note that the biggest advances in science, at least in the US, came under systems in which the information was freely shared. Since keeping research private and seeking patents, the US has gone from being a leader int he scientific community to a follower. But at least somebody made a bunch of money of them.

I agree, openness is the point and I applaud Intel for taking that stance. I just think that patenting and putting into an open consortium that anyone could use would be a safer way to do it. Before the 1980s and the era when universities had to fight for survival, things were much less cut-throat. Now, it's everybody for themselves, and I sense that anything you don't explicitly protect is open to attack from all corners. Complicating matters is that in most IP disputes, might (money) makes right.

As others have commented, first to file doesn't apply if the research has been made public. Since universities rely on publish or perish, the most likely scenario is that anything produced through Intel funding will be considered prior art when an outside party then tries to patent it. Assuming that the software is GPL'd, then it must include the GPL required headers, etc. So, if somebody does try to usurp it, then the university can sue them for license violations.

Plus, open source is the best kind of publication in some respects, because it is a complete disclosure of the exact technique being used. Of course, a patent examiner will rarely have time to dig into source code to figure out if a claim can be rejected on that basis, so it's also important to provide other publication such as a conference or journal article.

Nor does it change the fact that patent inspectors are MORONS. I worked in a company that had a patent on a device. Patent issued 1991, device sold commercially beginning 1992. We had a patent on a specific device, that did a task. USPTO granted a patent, in 1995, on the whole IDEA of making a device that could do exactly what our device/patent did, to a patent troll. While we won the lawsuit the troll filed, it cost our small business over $750K to fight it. The CEO, on many occasions, thought to settle fo

Patent inspectors are morons is unaffected by the change to first-to-file, so why even mention it? Except to get people to waste time by pointing out that it has no effect on this. If you were going for a very subtle troll--you succeeded!

I wish the US government would take a similar approach -- any royalties a university receives should go back to the government in the proportion of the funding provided. If a university payed for research costs with 50% from the government then royalties from the patent should be split 50% with the government. If the government provided 100% funding, then 100% of the royalties should go beck to the government. In doing this, then the government is truly investing in research instead of just paying the bills.

I also would include corporations, too. If the government provides x% of funding for the creation of a new drug, then x% of the profits should come back to the government, since it is the taxpayer that footed the bill in the first place.

The other alternative is what Intel is proposing -- we will pay for the research, but everybody has the right to benefit from it.

I think you are being far to generous. If government funding of a project is over x% or $x, then you can't get a patent at all on the research that money resulted in. Patents are much like a subsidy, and government funding is a subsidy. Allowing one organization to receive both in any substantial manner is double dipping, which should not be tolerated.

I for one would like to say "thank you" to Intel. For once you've chosen not to go evil. Hopefully this "federal funding for state adoption of policy" style of coercion will catch on a bit more with respect to freeing up university research from patent encumbrance. Now if only a similar carrot could be invented and dangled in front of the rest of the corporate world. Tax breaks in proportion to the value of openly published not patented R&D...?

While first to file is about to become a reality in the US, if the patent is for something that you don't hold a license or copyright for, how can you patent it? Unlike the person sitting at home who develops something and somebody copies it (or even a corporation), Intel states specifically that it needs to be released as open source (which would imply something like GPL). Code under a GPL license doesn't grant the user the right to patent it. Just like if I broke into a research facility and stole thei

It's apparent from jobs.intel.com that Intel has a large appetite for employees who hold PhDs. Maybe they actually want more people to perform advanced research in semiconductors, computer science, and computer architecture, so they can hire those people? It certainly looks like they're willing to put their money where their appetite is. The "open source" provision is a no-brainier way of protecting themselves from having to pay royalties steaming from research they contribute to. At the very worst, it

It's decided that the advantages of patenting have started to flow less and less to companies like Intel, and more to patent trolls. Intel is not the bad guy here.

Therefore, it is in Intel's interest to fund research in areas it may want to commercialize, and simultaneously preclude patenting by insisting on open publication and no patenting.

In this scenario, the entity with the most money (i.e. somebody like Intel) wins if they have sufficient drive.

More realistically, they want to preclude the people funded by Intel to set up a startup on their own, one whose primary asset is the people and the patent estate. This way Intel can hire them as ordinary employees who are impoverished postdocs instead of having to first buy them out and then hire them.

It is possible that Intel just wants to do the right thing, and that is because doing the right thing will help them. They know Universities and their research are not going to spawn Chip Fabs. Those efforts cost Billions. No, the small start ups are going to compete against other companies more than they will against Intel. It is about taking down many competitors more than it will take down Intel.

And fewer trolls will mean more start ups to buy. They couldn't care less about impoverishing post doc

Recently, we hosted a small-ish academic conference here at the university where I work, and I was one of the local organisers. Since we are in CS, potential sponsors are all the big name computing companies - Intel et. al.

Intel was very nice (it helped that we knew some researchers who work there, but still - everyone else was genuinely nice as well), and sponsored us. And interestingly, they have one non-negotiable condition for sponsoring academic conferences: the authors of presented papers *must* be allowed to put pre-prints of the papers (i.e. PDFs of the paper) on the web free of charge.

And that is a seriously cool think to ask for, because it prevents any sponsoring to go to the sort of conference which has papers disappear from general sight after publication, and only stores them behind a paywall of some sort. This is almost as important for research as the whole patents thing - *huge* kudos to Intel overall, someone has a major clue there!

Totally valid concern, and likely one only manageable through the threat of withdrawn funding.

One thing that does concern me is while the drive for open source is laudable and comes with a lot of (however fuzzy) wider economic benefits, universities develop patents and create new companies to spin off. This makes a lot of dough for the institution and births a lot of companies well worth having - they are good, well paid jobs and they drive significant applied science (all the key people involved taking a c

The practice of universities patenting everything that comes out of their labs is a relatively recent thing, and arguably has decreased the rate that new companies have been created out of university research. Without the patents and with a wide publication of university research, everyone in the world has the potential to benefit from that research, but the team that did the research has the advantage of actually being skilled with the methods and techniques and some or all of them could start a company to

[With] patent encumbrance, those people need to get the IP from the university or industrial partner before they can start their new company.

Zhengrong Shi is a perfect example, he invented something to do with solar tech while at Sydney university. He wanted to use the tech to spin of a company in Oz but the university sold the patent to a German company. Disheartened by the lack of support he returned to China to start his own company [wikipedia.org]. 10yrs later he is now the richest man in mainland China, but still cannot use his own invention. He does not blame the university, he blames short-sighted politicians, to drive the point home he has donated to th

Based on my own observations, this story is complete bullshit. Professor Goodnough at UT Austin invented the most practical methods for manufacturing LiFePO4 batteries and two key patents were granted in the late 90s. LiFePO4 is a great battery technology that is very stable and has the right voltages to replace lead-acid batteries. It is considerably more expensive, but there many applications where it would be much more desirable than lead-acid.